Hello, On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:28:09PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Dienstag, 8. September 2009 09:08:23 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov: > > > > PS: I now use the wiki via Mercurial and the hg-git extension. That way > > > I avoid getting bitten by git again ;) > > > I only need got for *creating* short-lived branches (sicne I can already > > > do the merging from mercurial). > > > > That's great :-) > > > > Seeing how advertently you propagate Mercurial in every applicable > > task, I think I'll have to have a look at it :-) It should be worth > > the time ;-) > > Maybe I should write a disclaimer into my signature : "I really like > Mercurial, but please also ask Olaf why git is great, so you see both sides" > :)
I remember your long discussion about Mercurial vs. git, but I don't remember all the details, because I didn't understand a lot at those times. However, it has just occurred to me that I should start familiarizing with Mercurial by reading that discussion, because in this way I could reference things with respect to git, which I already know. In this way I'll the explanation ``why git is great'', too :-) > I assume it's mostly personal preference. I like the feel of > Mercurial far more than that of git, but technically they are about > equal. Philosophically they are quite different, though. Git > advocates mutable history and private branches which you rebase > before you publish, while Mercurial advocates immutable history > (what's done is done) and early publishing of private branches to be > merged later on (you need to use command line options to *avoid* > publishing all branches when you push). Hm, immutable history frightens me -- my usual programming loop is like ``think->try->think again'', and during the third phase I often run into the necessity of changing what I have already done. Thus git-reset is one of my favourites :-) > What I also prefer about Mercurial is that it's very hard to shoot > yourself in the foot with the commands you get when you don't > activate any extensions (even though the extensions are shipped with > Mercurial and thus part of the program, they aren't active by > default). That makes it hard to break and quite useful for less > technical minded people, too. Do I understand it right, then, that when you don't activate any extensions, Mercurial allows only a basic set of operations which are guaranteed to keep things safe? > Also another disclaimer is needed: I actively contributed to > Mercurial up to a month ago (for example I wrote most of the content > on http://hg-scm.org )and only stopped because I have to concentrate > on learning for my diploma exam, now. So I decided to stick to the > Hurd, because I though that I can make more of a difference here > while needing to invest far less time (writing the news should only > take about half an hour to an hour per week). > > So my view is clearly *not* unbiased :) I see :-) Good luck with learning and passing the exam! :-) BTW, I like the news idea a lot, since it keeps the Hurd web-site regularly updated. I, for instance, have the habit of looking at the ``last updated'' date on any new site I arrive on to assess the level of activity in the project. Regards, scolobb
